Depending on the damage suffered by a spinal column, it is known that practitioners need to perform two kinds of surgical intervention.
When the damage relates only to an intervertebral disk and the two consecutive vertebrae on either side of the disk are in good condition, the practitioner can opt to replace the disk with a prosthesis that is functionally substantially equivalent to the original disk, i.e. it leaves the two vertebrae with freedom to move relative to each other in movements of rotation and/or translation.
In contrast, when the damage is more severe, the practitioner may decide to secure the two consecutive vertebrae to each other by osteosynthesis. To do this, the intervertebral disk is partially or completely destroyed and replaced by an intersomatic cage that is generally associated with an element that encourages osteosynthesis, e.g. a bone graft.
Intersomatic cages are implantable essentially via two approaches, a so-called “anterior” approach and a so-called “posterior” approach, each of these approaches having respective advantages and drawbacks.
Nevertheless, it would appear to be obvious that implanting via the posterior approach is more normal, since the path used by the practitioner for performing the surgery is relatively short. However it is also very tricky, since this path passes very close to elements that are essential for the patient's life, namely the spinal cord and the two nerves that serve in particular to control the patient's movements.
That is why certain practitioners sometimes opt for the “anterior” approach which involves performing surgery over a path that is much longer, but that, in theory, is less dangerous for the patient. In contrast, the time required for surgery is longer when using the posterior approach, and that can present drawbacks for the patient's health and recovery.
Numerous systems have thus been made for replacing a disk between two consecutive vertebrae that enables implantation to be performed in particular via the posterior approach.
By way of example, such systems are described and shown in US 2005/0027360, WO 2008/016598, and WO 00/44288. Nevertheless, those systems are relatively complex, bulky, and difficult to use.
The Applicant has also made such systems, e.g. the system described in FR-A-2 914 842.